Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. The petitioner challenges the detention order dated 112. 2006, whereby the Petitioners brother Suresh @ Baba Suresh was detained, branding him as Goonda under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982]. 2.The detenu had earlier come to adverse notice in three cases – H6 Dr.R.K.Nagar Police Station [Cr.No.552/2005 under Ss.341, 384 and 506(2) IPC]; H6 Dr.R.K.Nagar Police Station [Cr.No.1873/2005 under Ss.341, 323, 384 and 506(2) IPC]; H6 Dr.R.K.Nagar Police Station [Cr.No.751/2006 under Ss.294(b), 324 IPC @ to 307 r/w 34 IPC]. On 12.01.2006, the detenu and his associates are alleged to have attempted on the life of the defacto complainant one Gopal and caused damage to the vehicles parked in that area, regarding which a case was registered in H6 Dr.R.K.Nagar Police Station [Cr.No.844/2006 under Ss.147, 148, 336, 427, 307 and 506(2) IPC]. On the same day, the detenu and his associates are alleged to have committed theft relieving the defacto complainant of cash of Rs.25,000/-, regarding which a case was registered in Cr.No.845/2006 on the same police station. 3.Two fold contentions were raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the detenu has sent representation on 11.01.2007 and there was a delay in consideration of the representation. Having regard to the materials placed on record, in our view, it is not necessary to consider this ground of challenge, suffice it to note that there appears to be no unexplained delay in consideration of the representation. 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of preventive detention has been passed without proper application of mind regarding the imminent necessity to pass the order of detention in respect of the detenu who is already in custody. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon 1992(1) SCC 1 [Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manick Vs.Union of India and others] and other decisions. 5.The question falling for consideration is, whether on the basis of material, the order of detention was justified even though the detenu was in custody on the date of issuance of the order of detention. 6.The principle in this regard is well settled by a catena of decisions. In 1991(1) SCC 128 [Kamarunnissa Vs. 5.The question falling for consideration is, whether on the basis of material, the order of detention was justified even though the detenu was in custody on the date of issuance of the order of detention. 6.The principle in this regard is well settled by a catena of decisions. In 1991(1) SCC 128 [Kamarunnissa Vs. Union of India], Supreme Court has elucidated the principle as under: - "13.From the catena of decisions referred to above it seems clear to us that even in the case of a person in custody a detention order can validly be passed (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2)if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him (a)that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail, and (b)that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity; and (3)if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If the authority passes an order after recording his satisfaction in this behalf, such an order cannot be struck down on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and if bail is granted notwithstanding such opposition to question it before a higher Court." The same principle has been reiterated in other decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 7.A question was referred to the Full Bench of this Court as to "Whether the failure to use the word imminent possibility in the order of detention would make the order invalid and whether the Detaining Authority could be justified in using other convincing expressions". After elaborate consideration of various case laws on this aspect, in 2005 (2) LW Crl.946 [K.Thirupathi Vs.District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruchirapalli District & another], Justice P.Sathasivam, speaking for the Bench has answered the point of reference as under:- "26.There must be cogent material before the Authority passing the detention order for inferring that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. This inference must be drawn from material on record and must not be the ipse dixit of the Authority passing the detention order. This inference must be drawn from material on record and must not be the ipse dixit of the Authority passing the detention order. 27.In the case of a person in custody, a detention order can validly be passed if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him (a) that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail, and (b) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If the authority passes an order after recording its satisfaction in this behalf, such an order cannot be struck down on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and if bail is granted notwithstanding such opposition to question it before a higher Court". 8.In the light of the above well settled position of law, the present detention order is to be examined. We may notice the relevant part of detention order which deals with this aspect of the matter. "I am aware that Thiru Suresh @ Baba Suresh is in remand in H6 Dr.R.K.Nagar Police Station Crime Nos.844/2006 and 845/2006 and has not moved any bail application so far. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail for the above case by filing bail application before the same Court or higher Courts, since in similar cases bails are granted by the same Court or higher Courts". It is seen that the Detaining Authoritys satisfaction consists of two parts viz., (i)the detenu is in custody in Cr.No.844/2006 and 845/2006; (ii)there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail for the above cases by filing bail applications. 9.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to various pages in Paper Book showing that the detenu was under arrest and in custody not only in Cr.Nos.844 and 845/2006 but also in Cr.No.751/2006. In page 30 of the Paper Book, Arrest Intimation shows that the detenu was informed that he is also arrested in connection with Cr.No.751/2006 under Ss.307 IPC r/w 34 IPC. The Remand Report [page 31 of the Paper Book] requisition was made for remanding the detenu in Cr.No.751/2006. In page 30 of the Paper Book, Arrest Intimation shows that the detenu was informed that he is also arrested in connection with Cr.No.751/2006 under Ss.307 IPC r/w 34 IPC. The Remand Report [page 31 of the Paper Book] requisition was made for remanding the detenu in Cr.No.751/2006. Arrest Memo [page 178 of the Paper Book] also shows that the accused was arrested in connection with all three cases Cr.Nos.844, 845 and 751/2006. In the remand report, when remand was sought for in Cr.No.751/2006, the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind as to whether the detenu was actually remanded in Cr.No.751/2006 or not. Grounds of detention does not indicate the application of mind on this aspect nor custody of the detenu in Cr.No.751/2006. When remand has been sought for in three cases, there is no proper conclusion by the Detaining Authority that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in all three cases. 10.On the real possibility of the detenu being likely to be released, the Detaining Authority has recorded its satisfaction only in Cr.Nos.844/2006 and 845/2006. in fact, remand has been sought for in Cr.No.751/2006 also. Grounds of detention does not reflect as to whether detenu was in judicial custody in Cr.No.745/2006 also. In the counter affidavit filed in the Court, Detaining Authority has stated "Cr.No.751/2006 is of similar section as that of Cr.No.844/2006 and if bail is granted in Cr.No.844 and 845/2006, the detenu can get bail in other cases also. And only in this context, in Cr.No.751/2006 was left out". In our view, it is not mere omission; but appears to be non-application of mind. Admittedly, the detenu was arrested in Cr.No.751/2006 and was in jail. Hence grant of bail in Cr.No.751/2006 is not automatic; granting of bail in Cr.No.751/2006 cannot be foretold. 11.Holding that when detenu is already in jail or custody, imminent possibility of his release on bail and apprehension of Detaining Authority must be based on cogent material, in 2006(1) SCC Crl 593 [T.V.Saravanan @ S.A.R.Prasana Venkatachariar Chaturvedi], the Supreme Court has held as follows: - "We are satisfied that for the same reason the order of detention cannot be upheld in this case. The bail applications moved by the appellant had been rejected by the Courts and there was no material whatsoever to apprehend that he was likely to move a bail application or that there was imminent possibility of the prayer for bail being granted. The imminent possibility of the appellant coming out on bail is merely the ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority unsupported by any material whatsoever. There was no cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which the detaining authority could be satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. The inference has to be drawn from the available material on record. In the absence of such material on record the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of detention. There was, therefore, no sufficient compliance with the requirements as laid down by this Court". 12.Following T.V.Saravanans case, in 2006(3) SCC Crl 371 [A.Shanthi Vs. Govt. Of T.N. and others], the Supreme Court has held that the "imminent possibility" of the appellant coming out on bail is merely the ipse dixit of the detaining authority unsupported by any material whatsoever. There was no cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which the detaining authority could be satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. The inference has to be drawn from the available material on record. In the absence of such material on record the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of detention. 13.Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we are satisfied that the order of detention cannot be upheld in this case. This HCP is allowed and the detention order is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.